Berland v. The Conclave, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 BRIAN G. BERLAND, et al., Case No.: 3:20-cv-00922-H-WVG

14 Petitioners, ORDER DENYING PAGE 15 v. RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATOR’S 16 THE CONCLAVE, LLC, et al., APPOINTMENT OF RONNIE 17 Respondents. STANLEY

18 [Doc. Nos. 74, 83.] 19 20 On June 24, 2021, the Page Respondents filed a motion to vacate the Arbitrator’s 21 appointment of Ronnie Stanley as provisional manager of Progenex Holdings, LLC. (Doc. 22 No. 74.) On August 9, 2021, Progenex Holdings, LLC filed its opposition to the motion. 23 (Doc. No. 78.) On August 23, 2021, the Page Respondents filed their reply. (Doc. No. 82.)1 24 On July 16, 2021, the Court took the matter under submission. (Doc. No. 77.) 25

26 1 With their reply, the Page Respondents also filed an untimely request for leave to file an overlength 27 reply brief. (Doc. No. 83.) The Court grants the request but encourages the parties to file requests for 28 extensions and leave to file excess pages more than just one business day before the briefing in question 1 The Court has reviewed the Page Respondents’ motion to vacate the Arbitrator’s 2 ||appointment of Ronnie Stanley as the provisional manager of Progenex Holdings, LLC, 3 concludes the Arbitrator’s non-final order is not reviewable by this Court. It is not the 4 ||role of district courts to provide appellate review of every individual order issued during 5 ||an arbitration; such a system would significantly increase the costs and time associated 6 arbitration, rendering the advantages of arbitration over traditional litigation 7 ||meaningless. See Millmen Local 550, United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 8 || AFL-CIO v. Wells Exterior Trim, 828 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987) (“To allow judicial 9 || intervention prior to the final award . . . would interfere with the purpose of arbitration: the 10 || speedy resolution of grievances without the time and expense of court proceedings.”’). The 11 |/reasoning of Pacific Reinsurance is not applicable to the Arbitrator’s appointment order 12 || because, unlike the Arbitrator’s preliminary injunction, the appointment order is not a 13 ||‘“‘temporary equitable order[] calculated to preserve assets or performance needed to make 14 |/a potential final award meaningful.” Pac. Reinsurance Mgmt. Corp. v. Ohio Reinsurance 15 || Corp., 935 F.2d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 1991). In addition, even if it were reviewable, the 16 |/Court declines to alter the Arbitrator’s appointment of Ronnie Stanley. The Court notes 17 || that a corporation cannot appear pro se, so the Court believes it is reasonable to appoint a 18 || provisional manager. The Court accordingly denies the Page Respondents’ motion to 19 || vacate the Arbitrator’s appointment of Ronnie Stanley. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||DATED: August 24, 2021 | | l | | | , 22 MARILYN W. HUFF, Distric e 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 24 25 26 27 28